IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Analysis Video Is Very Telling, Please Watch This 10 Minute Video

CB_Brooklyn
post Feb 26 2007, 04:58 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 26 2007, 05:08 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



You might want to introduce yourself in the Welcome forum and tell us a bit about yourself and what YOU think of these comparisons. How did you come across them? How have they influenced your thinking about 9/11? How *do* you perceive 9/11. Etc.

Welcome to the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AZ/Watch
post Mar 2 2007, 06:44 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 7-February 07
Member No.: 570



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

CB:
The issue you raise about one of the news vids not catching the approaching 757 in the picture, could be due to editing in Photoshop frame by frame using the cloning tool, which would be easy since cloning the plane out from patchs of the water that is in the background of the 75.

In addition, I thought the wording in type between the crash sequences was/is too leading, meaning the author wanted you to think what they were trying to make you think (no planes). Leading this obviously... tends to brace most logical thinkers, it's a slippery slope and most of us have been on the edge before, and have learned to brace with overt info.

Just my opinion, thanks for posting this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Mar 3 2007, 11:07 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

No plane, I doubt it. But what it does do is show 'puffs of smokes' explosions on the first tower hit.

911blimp has pointed this out from a different angle.

The puffs on the first tower remind me of the squibs saw during the collapse. That is an excellent tactic and would explain why they took so long to blow the towers. Use the fireball from the other impact to distract from detonating the floors near the impact area to initiate collapse at that point. Thanks for the video as this supports other angles of the same 'puffs' located here

http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Mar 3 2007, 11:16 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 04:08 AM)
You might want to introduce yourself in the Welcome forum and tell us a bit about yourself and what YOU think of these comparisons. How did you come across them? How have they influenced your thinking about 9/11? How *do* you perceive 9/11. Etc.

Welcome to the forum.

I must admit the side by side by side coverage is very bizarre indeed. I would like to see that analyzed by a professional before making any kind of judgement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Mar 4 2007, 08:10 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 09:08 AM)
You might want to introduce yourself in the Welcome forum and tell us a bit about yourself and what YOU think of these comparisons. How did you come across them? How have they influenced your thinking about 9/11? How *do* you perceive 9/11. Etc.

Welcome to the forum.

I second the welcome, CB_Brooklyn and like to add,
that I would appreciate it to see you doing a little research
about all of that, too. Our Library is a very good source for that.

See you again in the 'Welcome All' thread.

CB_Berlin: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Mar 4 2007, 10:38 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

I just compared the video to some live broadcasts of the day, this time from NBC at a corner angle of the first tower hit. You can see two sides of the tower to give you a perspective. You can see the plane enter the frame, but he actual impact is blocked from view because of the first tower. However, at the explosion, you can see the dark tipped connical shape of the nose of the plane exit the building while in the fireball and then explode and disentagrate.

This is also evident in the third segment of the posted video where it is claimed the image is manipulated as the 'nose' passes through the building.

After viewing the first segment of the video footage posted not showing a plane entering the frame, I'm inclined to believe that this video has been manipulated to push the 'no plane' theory. Stay away from it folks, it is a polluted well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AZ/Watch
post Mar 4 2007, 02:40 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 7-February 07
Member No.: 570



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Mar 4 2007, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

I just compared the video to some live broadcasts of the day, this time from NBC at a corner angle of the first tower hit. You can see two sides of the tower to give you a perspective. You can see the plane enter the frame, but he actual impact is blocked from view because of the first tower. However, at the explosion, you can see the dark tipped connical shape of the nose of the plane exit the building while in the fireball and then explode and disentagrate.

This is also evident in the third segment of the posted video where it is claimed the image is manipulated as the 'nose' passes through the building.

After viewing the first segment of the video footage posted not showing a plane entering the frame, I'm inclined to believe that this video has been manipulated to push the 'no plane' theory. Stay away from it folks, it is a polluted well.

Re: the 2nd plane, there is a good video from eyewitness that lived in one of the condos that overlooked the wtc, the vid is 26.26 min. long, however, 11.50 min. into the film the second plane hits tower2 and you hear the 2 ladies experience of it. Interesting to listen to their inpromtu dialogue right after seeing the second tower hit:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...=911+eyewitness

This post has been edited by AZ/Watch: Mar 4 2007, 02:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 12 2007, 01:06 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Mar 4 2007, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

I just compared the video to some live broadcasts of the day, this time from NBC at a corner angle of the first tower hit. You can see two sides of the tower to give you a perspective. You can see the plane enter the frame, but he actual impact is blocked from view because of the first tower. However, at the explosion, you can see the dark tipped connical shape of the nose of the plane exit the building while in the fireball and then explode and disentagrate.

This is also evident in the third segment of the posted video where it is claimed the image is manipulated as the 'nose' passes through the building.

After viewing the first segment of the video footage posted not showing a plane entering the frame, I'm inclined to believe that this video has been manipulated to push the 'no plane' theory. Stay away from it folks, it is a polluted well.

aluminum airplanes don't glide into steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air.

A plastic nosecone is not going to glide through hundreds of feet of steel and concrete and pop out the other side.


The CGI at the WTC is factual. The corporate media broadcast a cartoon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 12 2007, 01:20 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 04:08 AM)
You might want to introduce yourself in the Welcome forum and tell us a bit about yourself and what YOU think of these comparisons. How did you come across them? How have they influenced your thinking about 9/11? How *do* you perceive 9/11. Etc.

Welcome to the forum.

This new video analysis was posted in www.911researchers.com.

I personally think it is definitive proof of direct newscaster involvement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
podperson
post Mar 13 2007, 09:27 AM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-March 07
Member No.: 758



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

Most of what is in the videos is misconception.

However as for the plane not showing, that's easily answered, the videos are of poor quality and they are a long way away from the action.

The one which shows the plane is in a little tighter, but still the plane in just about a single pixel, the other one isn't zoomed in enough until the plane is no longer behind the blue background.

Once the plane is in front of the building you can't see it in either camera as the contrast is too low, or at least I can't see it.

The one that doesn't see it is simply zoomed out too far, it it's about 1 pixel on the other one then it's less on that one which adds up with the compression and blur to nothing readily observible, yes it does zoom in later but only once the plane is no longer contrasted.

The idea that the planes were just cgi creations not only requires every eyewitness (human and camera) of the planes to be fake but there after also as explosives can't leave a perfect plane shaped hole.

The no plane theory is pure stupidity and I suggest those that believe in this foolishness to keep it to yourself as it is far from the best evidence that 911 was an inside job, most people myself included would never buy a no plane theory.

It discredits the 911 truth movement and that would be true even if it were the truth. (which is impossible as it requires almost everyone in NYC to be in on it, including those in the buildings (the ones that got out))
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 14 2007, 12:44 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



QUOTE (podperson @ Mar 13 2007, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Feb 26 2007, 03:58 AM)
This TV network comparison video is very interesting. Any thoughts?

Most of what is in the videos is misconception.

However as for the plane not showing, that's easily answered, the videos are of poor quality and they are a long way away from the action.

The one which shows the plane is in a little tighter, but still the plane in just about a single pixel, the other one isn't zoomed in enough until the plane is no longer behind the blue background.

Once the plane is in front of the building you can't see it in either camera as the contrast is too low, or at least I can't see it.

The one that doesn't see it is simply zoomed out too far, it it's about 1 pixel on the other one then it's less on that one which adds up with the compression and blur to nothing readily observible, yes it does zoom in later but only once the plane is no longer contrasted.

The idea that the planes were just cgi creations not only requires every eyewitness (human and camera) of the planes to be fake but there after also as explosives can't leave a perfect plane shaped hole.

The no plane theory is pure stupidity and I suggest those that believe in this foolishness to keep it to yourself as it is far from the best evidence that 911 was an inside job, most people myself included would never buy a no plane theory.

It discredits the 911 truth movement and that would be true even if it were the truth. (which is impossible as it requires almost everyone in NYC to be in on it, including those in the buildings (the ones that got out))

I have an idea that most people in this forum are smart enough to see through your drivel, so I need not waste my time answering. Should you attempt an intelligent discussion however, I may answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
podperson
post Mar 14 2007, 06:16 AM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-March 07
Member No.: 758



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Mar 13 2007, 11:44 PM)
I have an idea that most people in this forum are smart enough to see through your drivel, so I need not waste my time answering. Should you attempt an intelligent discussion however, I may answer.

Good comeback, not.

I'm sorry but this is very lame, even if it wasn't quite clearly just a case of a camera not picking up a sub pixel object it still doesn't prove news agency involvement. (and even if what you are proposing was even possible which clearly it isn't as it requires everyone in NYC to be in on it)

Because if you know that a plane has flown into one tower (or you were told as much) if you see another identical explosion on the other building you don't have to make a huge leap to get to 'Another plane hit'.

I'm not even saying that some news agencies weren't apparently in on it, there is far far far better evidence in BBC reporting that 'The Solomon Brothers Building (WTC7) has just collapsed after the collapse of the twin towers' when the reporter telling us this is standing at a window with the still standing WTC7 clearly visible over her shoulder.

This is absolute proof positive that at least some in the media were in on it.

http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/

The theory that there were no planes however requires that no videos or people not in on it see the planes hit, this is stupid.
Furthermore as a plane shaped entry hole remains (with fine wing detail) with smoke coming out you really need all eyes camera and human anywhere near to be in on it during the entire length.

May I ask what you think the advantage of a no plane theory is other than to sound totally insane?
Do you think that anyone with an IQ above 80 will ever believe you?
Do you think that officials not in on it are going to be convinced by a conspiracy that requires everyone in the area including those in the building to be in on it?
One that requires flawless live addition of a plane and yet somehow is so incredibly dumb as to not have motion compensation? (motion compensation is old tech)

And how can you explain that anyway when other videos had motion and a plane?

This is a theory not for people seeking the truth, that which has the most evidence, or is logical.
It is one of those theories created by those who want to believe something that sounds really crazy, others include 'it was a hologram', or 'they used exotic weapons beam weapons' or finally 'they used minature nuclear devices'.
The latter stands out as quite sensible in comparison to the others which is quite telling as it's pretty crazy.

But for those interested in truth this is not only absurd but simply doesn't fit the evidence the best, it's a superfluous theory as it doesn't explain anything or in any way improve the case against those who did it.

The only evidence for the no plane theory is a single video, almost the only one that failed to pickup the plane.
I say almost because the other video shown as a video which shows the plane has the plane only against the blue background, as soon as it is in front of the grey building you can't see it showing how close it is to undetectability, even when you can see it it is clear that it's only a pixel or 2, the other video is notably not as zoomed in at that window, so the only evidence is far far better explained by a very obvious answer.

Furthermore this theory fails to explain why all the photos would show a flash outside the building, or why there would be a pod and visible missile and IR targeting laser.

It also fails to explain the wreckage that came out of the other side of the building and was found on the ground.

I am amazed that anyone would buy such a weak and obvious disinfo ploy meant to discredit the movement.
I again ask even if you do believe it do you think it has a greater chance of being accepted than the very down to earth military drone (which all eyewitnesses said it was) 'theory'?

I would also point out that the videos is downgraded, they are no where even standard ntsc resolution, the plane may have indeed been very visible but by playing with resolution, compression and quantanization the plane was removed.

If you agree to remove you claim and reverse your position on my demonstration of this I will see if I can do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 14 2007, 07:28 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Last paragraph from a Topic Introduction I wrote for the 'WTC: Flights 11 & 175' topic in the Library:

QUOTE
So take your pick - simple drones, planes with pods, or computer graphics. A word of advice - don't get too wrapped up in this, much of the evidence is contradictory, the issue practically begs for the offering up of disinformation to create discord within the movement (sometimes I think they are and that it's working), and, ultimately, we may never find out what really happened or how they did it.

Does it really matter?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=6981016

I don't think it matters, not as long as congress refuses to discuss impeaching the president and no grand jury in the land will look into official complicity in 9/11. And this issue certainly isn't worth fighting over IMO.

To cut to the chase, I think an even better question than What Theory Do You Subscribe To is, How Is Your Energy Best Spent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 14 2007, 07:46 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Re: the 2nd plane, there is a good video from eyewitness that lived in one of the condos that overlooked the wtc, the vid is 26.26 min. long, however, 11.50 min. into the film the second plane hits tower2 and you hear the 2 ladies experience of it. Interesting to listen to their inpromtu dialogue right after seeing the second tower hit:


That particular video is the most infuriating thing, it has been edited to hell, all the most critical moments have been erased. Why on earth would anyone ever edit something like that? dunno.gif

Edited to add.
I don't base my beliefs on others theory's but on the basic floors of the official theory.
I welcome all angles of attack myself, we the normal can only guess at what these bastards really did.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Mar 14 2007, 07:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
podperson
post Mar 14 2007, 08:19 PM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-March 07
Member No.: 758



It does matter though.

According to the same people that put together that video the buildings were fake, the explosion was fake, therefore the plane shaped hole the smoke that was pouring out of it must therefore be fake along with the smoke it's self, everyone and every videocamera that saw the hole or the smoke must be fake.

Of course all of their 'evidence' is about as convincing as a $15 note.

But those that want to believe a lie will go ahead and believe regardless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 14 2007, 10:02 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



But those that want to believe a lie will go ahead and believe regardless.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE (podperson @ Mar 14 2007, 07:19 PM)
It does matter though.

According to the same people that put together that video the buildings were fake, the explosion was fake, therefore the plane shaped hole the smoke that was pouring out of it must therefore be fake along with the smoke it's self, everyone and every videocamera that saw the hole or the smoke must be fake.

Of course all of their 'evidence' is about as convincing as a $15 note.

But those that want to believe a lie will go ahead and believe regardless.

You're obviously dead against TV-Fakery. That's understandable. The Truth Movement has been conditioned by design to be against it. What better way to keep the real truths hidden?


In the CNN video the plane, buildings and trees were all fake. This has been shown here: http://www.911researchers.com/node/215


AFA WTC 7, I (and others) now believe it's a red herring, also by design:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/323


See these videos comparing known real plane crashed to 9/11:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/98


As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says:

"NPT [TV-Fakery] is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. Itís the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. Theyíd be done."

"The video is phony because airliners donít meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"


http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=..._planer_resigns
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
podperson
post Mar 14 2007, 10:34 PM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-March 07
Member No.: 758



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Mar 14 2007, 09:02 PM)
"The video is phony because airliners donít meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

Read either 'It's Podtastic' or 'Hi, and my theory' in which I give an explanation as to how something that would generally not be strong enough can be made to break through something stronger with ease.

But while I think my theory holds a lot of promise, there most clearly is a pod, a missile, an ignition of the missile and no other really good reason for a pod and missile to be there, I can't say that a plane like that (with what may seem to be a DU nose) has no chance of entering into a building like that at the speeds given, I doubt it but can't deny it.

It looks odd not impossible.

I shouldn't even reply, to say that the 'cgi plane, cgi explosion, cgi hole, cgi smoke' (why not cgi collapse too?) 'theory' makes no sense is being generous, calling it a theory is being generous, stating that you had to have an IQ lower than 80 to believe this trash is being generous.

Show me a single piece of 'evidence', obviously the one I've explained (and challenged you that I could recreate) involving a sub pixel dot of grey move in an ocean of blue seemingly videotaped and transfered to a lossy codec isn't going to cut it, find me the strongest piece of evidence and I'll tear it to shreds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
podperson
post Mar 14 2007, 11:20 PM
Post #19





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 13-March 07
Member No.: 758



Ok, so your theory is that there is no plane and just by luck only they captured the second plane strike, that was lucky as a single video showing no plane would be pretty damning.
It's also pretty odd that with the WTC on fire and all those people looking and seeing the second plane crash not one has reported that there was no second plane. (oh wait, it was cgi fire and smoke so I guess that explains it)

Simple question, why? Why would they have done something so stupid when they could just fly a plane into a building?

Ok, so in another one of those videos which I guess is your's? the claim is that the explosion is fake, so it's cgi too, funny thing though the camera that was moving all around so they couldn't put the picture of the plane on shows the cgi explosion despite the fact the camera is still moving.

Other 'evidence' includes panning the video not showing a change in perspective, well as the change in perspective is a few inches no wonder when the other objects are far distant, I can move anywhere of the earth and closer and further away stars won't change perspective because the movement is far too small for the distance, the camera only moved a few inches. (If you move a camera just so then the perspective doesn't change at all, not an inch)

I'f you'll forgive my smack talk, your theory is so special it takes a different bus to school.

The no plane theory is a weak disinfo theory which is looking for fools who will grab on to the craziest theory yet, you'll lose them all the moment suggests Elvis did it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Apr 6 2007, 02:56 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/D970F1BEFDFC4FB4B4D4D81B7EE1ECE2/cnn-fake-footage-blasted-tv.aspx

Found at new posting at 911scholars.org
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2019 - 07:55 AM